Saddam Hussein executed

[Michael Tee]

<<Right.  Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base (again simply spouting places where isolated incidents have occured) >>

Uh, they're not "isolated" if they're occurring all over the globe, are they?

<<+ lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers (means squat if it wasn't prompted by said high-ranking officers)>>

Uh, I guess "command responsibility" means nothing at all to you, does it?

<< + lack of serious penalties for troops (meaning they didn't get the death penalty to Tee's shagrin)>>

meaning they'll all be out of jail in the next couple of years

<< + continuing cover-up  (  see?) >>

that referred to the 90% of the over 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos that the Pentagon is keeping to itself for the time being

<< President's refusal to renounce torture (despite the fact that he has)>>

No he hasn't - - he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture

<< + administration memos denouncing Geneva Conventions (as it pertains to enemy combants.  Again, try to keep it honest)>>

You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty.  The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."

<< + torture in other military bases in Iraq, etc. (which again means squat if they're not under U.S conrol)>>

The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake - - should have made that clear, although I don't know how anyone could think that torture in non-U.S. bases or non-puppet bases could have implicated the U.S.

<<Right.  There IS no lack of evidence that the Bush administration supports torture. (With the convenient ommission of such evidence)>>

ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence was in the immediately preceding paragraph.

<<Right.  This proof that the current PM was put in place by the U.S. is that the legislature's first choice was unacceptable to the Bush administration and did not take office.   (Look at what you're typing Tee.  Again, not 1 SHRED of proof or evidence of any kind, just your concocted dots.>>

What, are you a total moron?  The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time.  What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there? 

<<Gads, you're making my point>>

That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything?  It's not worth the effort, sirs.

[sirs]

<<Right.  Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo + rendition + Baghram Base (again simply spouting places where isolated incidents have occured) >>
Uh, they're not "isolated" if they're occurring all over the globe, are they?

We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee.   I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled

<<+ lack of prosecution of high-ranking officers (means squat if it wasn't prompted by said high-ranking officers)>>

Uh, I guess "command responsibility" means nothing at all to you, does it?

Hey, if those leaders gave any commands to torture, throw the book at them is my motto.  Kinda debunks your command responsibility now, donit?

<< + lack of serious penalties for troops (meaning they didn't get the death penalty to Tee's shagrin)>>

meaning they'll all be out of jail in the next couple of years

We'll see, won't we. 

that referred to the 90% of the over 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos that the Pentagon is keeping to itself for the time being

Again, if all it is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either.  Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims

he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture

Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture.  That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it.  Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.

You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty. 

I'm not the only one who could.  Just the current one

The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."

Full context, if you don't mind

The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake

Then show us.  Show us the evidence of this widespread torture at U.S bases in Iraq, and being completely supported by Bush Co.  Oh wait, lemme guess......more of that great cover-up ability.  Those bastards

ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence (of Bush condoning torture) was in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Systematically debunked in the follow-up response

What, are you a total moron?  The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time.  What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there? 

No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along

That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything?  It's not worth the effort, sirs.

Typical.  when completely unarmed, respond with a barrage of insults.  Again, I appreciate your contributions in helping to make my point

[Michael Tee]

<<What, are you a total moron?  The story [that Jaafari, the Iraqi first choice for Prime Minister, was rejected as unacceptable to the Americans] was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time.  What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there?  >>

ahhhh shit.  Looks like I owe sirs an apology.  Fuck.  The story isn't as black and white as I recalled it.  According to some sources, Jaafari was unacceptable to a coalition of Kurds and Sunnis and Khalizdad, the U.S. ambassador, "helped" the Iraqis to pick the compromise candidate Maliki through his "superior negotiating skills."  It may well be that the U.S. did dictate the choice but it's nowhere near as obvious as I thought it was.  Sorry, sirs.

[Michael Tee]

<<We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee.   I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled>>

Seems like as soon as one of your points is blown up you claim you were talking about something else.  Not that it would help you anyway because there is no sense in which the incidents of U.S. torture are "isolated" either geographically or numerically.

<<Hey, if those leaders gave any commands to torture, throw the book at them is my motto.  Kinda debunks your command responsibility now, donit?>>

They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they?  So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to.  Either way, their ass should be in a sling.  UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.

<<We'll see, won't we.  [if the handful of torturers so far convicted and sentenced are still locked up in another two years]>>

I think the length of the time served is rather apparent from the Mickey Mouse sentences handed out.  Appeals, time off for good behaviour, pardons - - if it was the intention of anybody to really punish them, they'd be on Death Row or serving life terms.  Didn't happen.

<<Again, if all it [the 90% of the 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos not released by the Pentagon] is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either.  Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims>>

Oh, I see.  They are holding back the torture photos to avoid embarrassing the "terrorists."  How very considerate of them.

<<I wouldn't show them either.>>

Oh, getting confused about which side you're on now?  All the same, nice to see such concerns about embarrassing the terrorists.  I wouldn't have thought you cared.

<<Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture",>>

No shit.  Great attempt to deflect attention from the crimes of the American forces to the truly trivial.  Not that you would ever deliberately do so, of course, for we all know how much you are opposed to torture and how much you want any real torturers to be punished.   Just so you understand real torture, we are talking about beating people to death, we are talking about raping them up the ass with various electronic objects, we are talking about suffocating them, we are talking about "waterboarding" them (which Cheney apparently thinks is fine) and electroshocking them.  Since you are so much against all of these practices, we are having a hard time figuring out why on numerous occasions in this group, you have attempted to minimize them by references to panties on the head, loud music, etc., which no serious opponent of torture has really objected to.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
he issued a "signing statement" that reserves unto himself the right to decide what is or is not torture

<<Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture.  That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it.  Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.>>

If that were true, Bush would exempt the loud music etc. and accept prohibitions against tortures such as waterboarding, siccing attack dogs on naked prisoners, etc.  He has reserved unto himself the broadest and most unlimited power to torture, refusing to limit it in any way at all.  Disproving your theory that he is only concerned with the most frivolous definitions of torture.  Besides which, a little common sense is in order here - - why on earth would Bush WANT to preserve the right to put panties on a prisoner's head, or play loud music to him, if that's his only concern?


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
You're the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty. 

<<I'm not the only one who could.  Just the current one>>

You haven't made one allegation of dishonesty against me that could stick.  On the other hand, your misrepresentations of my arguments are apparent in just about everything you post.  That's why I say that you are the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty.  I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low.  I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit. 

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
The denunciation was that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured enemies were "quaint and old-fashioned."

<<Full context, if you don't mind>>

Sorry, if you're the one claiming I took it out of context, YOU have to provide the missing text that puts it IN context.  Otherwise, I'd have to reproduce the whole fucking text.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
The reference was to other U.S. bases, my mistake

<<Then show us.  Show us the evidence of this widespread torture at U.S bases in Iraq, and being completely supported by Bush Co.  Oh wait, lemme guess......more of that great cover-up ability.  Those bastards>>

Not really.  There were reports of torture at a desert base in Iraq and of course the "renditions" which were to various Eastern European countries, some Arab countries like Syria and Jordan, and the British naval base at Diego Garcia, among others.  There is plenty of torture all over the world conducted by the U.S. government directly or indirectly, far too many sites to make this an "isolated" anything.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
ah, your A.D.D. must be acting up again; the evidence (of Bush condoning torture) was in the immediately preceding paragraph.


<<Systematically debunked in the follow-up response>>

"systematically debunked" - - what's this another declare victory hit enter?

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
What, are you a total moron?  The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time.  What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there? 

<<No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along>>

My one possible mistake, which I already apologized for.  Not because it's not true, only because it's not as well documented as I thought and because it MIGHT not be true.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 08:09:31 PM
That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything?  It's not worth the effort, sirs.

<<Typical.  when completely unarmed, respond with a barrage of insults.  Again, I appreciate your contributions in helping to make my point >>

Barrage?  THAT'S a barrage?  Hey, thanks for helping ME make MY point.

[BT]

They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they?  So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to.  Either way, their ass should be in a sling.  UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.

Complete and utter nonsense.

[Michael Tee]

<<Complete and utter nonsense.>>

Made sense to me. 

And there's another argument:  these guys have a lot of leeway to wink at things and turn a blind eye.  Unless they are held strictly accountable for war crimes, they will always be able to say they didn't know.  Since they have much stricter powers of oversight and discipline, they are much better able to enforce compliance than a civilian counterpart would be.

So they should be held to a standard of being punished as if they knew.  They probably knew anyway, very few people are that stupid and incompetent that they can't have their own eyes and ears everywhere - - trusted officers who keep an eye on every corner of their command.  Especally a static command like a prison.  There's no excuse for not knowing and in all probablity they knew.

[hnumpah]

[BT]

<<Complete and utter nonsense.>>

Made sense to me. 

Of course it did. You were the one who posted the complete and utter nonsense.

Using your logic, Cindy Sheehan killed her son, because she had so little control over his alledged free will that she let him enlist.

[Michael Tee]

<<Using your logic, Cindy Sheehan killed her son, because she had so little control over his alledged free will that she let him enlist. >>

No, that's using YOUR logic.  My logic says that Cindy Sheehan had none of the control over her son that a commanding officer has over his troops in a war zone, and none of the disciplinary and oversight powers.  None of the resources that a commanding officer has.

She is just a poor mother attempting to influence a youthful, obviously very stupid, ignorant and headstrong son who lacks the brainpower to resist his government's lies and abuse of trust and ultimately becomes their cannon fodder.  Very  sad story.  But nothing criminal there, unlike the commanders of torture chambers.

[sirs]

<<We're talking #'s involved, not geography Tee.   I realize the dishonest attempt to blurr the 2, but most rationally minded folks aren't gonna get fooled>>

Seems like as soon as one of your points is blown up you claim you were talking about something else.  Not that it would help you anyway because there is no sense in which the incidents of U.S. torture are "isolated" either geographically or numerically.

As I said.  Your dishonest effort to blurr the 2 only is fooling you....and knute of course

They were in command of the fucking torturers, weren't they?  So either they authorized the torture or they had no clue what their own men were up to.  Either way, their ass should be in a sling.  UNLESS what happened was exactly what was supposed to happen.

OR, people 5-7 layers up the chain of command have no frellin clue/idea/or grasp of what nimrods are doing 5-7 layers down the chain.  And that those who actually COMMITTED THE CRIMES are the ones who are actually HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their crimes.  Gads, what a concept

I think the length of the time served is rather apparent from the Mickey Mouse sentences handed out.  Appeals, time off for good behaviour, pardons - - if it was the intention of anybody to really punish them, they'd be on Death Row or serving life terms.  Didn't happen.

Sentences handed out for what crimes committed?  Show us.  Not YOUR version, but the official version.  Then we can agree or not as to how harsh or not harsh the sentences were

Oh, I see.  They are holding back the torture photos to avoid embarrassing the "terrorists."  How very considerate of them.

Not what I said or even implied, but good effort at distortion

Oh, getting confused about which side you're on now?  All the same, nice to see such concerns about embarrassing the terrorists.  I wouldn't have thought you cared.

The side that minimizes both American & civilian casualties, during this war.  Such a media spectacle, all in the effort to hurt Bush of course, simply will fuel the fire of muslim radicals, and those already predisposed to believing what the media want's them to believe about America.  Such a broadcasting would most certainly result in a significant INCREASE in attacks against americans & innocent Iraqis.  Obviously, you don't care

<<Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture",>>

Great attempt to deflect attention from the crimes of the American forces to the truly trivial.  Not that you would ever deliberately do so, of course, for we all know how much you are opposed to torture and how much you want any real torturers to be punished.   Just so you understand real torture, we are talking about beating people to death, we are talking about raping them up the ass with various electronic objects, we are talking about suffocating them, we are talking about "waterboarding" them (which Cheney apparently thinks is fine) and electroshocking them.  Since you are so much against all of these practices, we are having a hard time figuring out why on numerous occasions in this group, you have attempted to minimize them by references to panties on the head, loud music, etc., which no serious opponent of torture has really objected to.

And here again Tee's tactic to a shrewd sharpness....accusing me and like minds, along with Bush assumingly as trvializing actual torture, actual acts of cruelty, simply becasue we haven't adopted his predispostion of what torture is.  For the record, people beaten to death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of a military tribunal if they're a soldier, and by our courts if they're a civilian.  People raping anyone else should have the book thrown at them.  I can't speak for Bush, but I'm confident he believes the same.  Are you clued in yet, Tee?

<<Again, when the left claims garbage like making someone listen to loud music, or keep them from having 8 hours blissful sleep is labeled as "torture" by the rabid left, Bush has every right to deem what is and isn't torture.  That ironically in no way validates your claim that he refuses to renounce it.  Only refuses to renounce anything and everything that folks like YOU would claim as torture.>>

If that were true, Bush would exempt the loud music etc. and accept prohibitions against tortures such as waterboarding, siccing attack dogs on naked prisoners, etc.  He has reserved unto himself the broadest and most unlimited power to torture, refusing to limit it in any way at all.  Disproving your theory that he is only concerned with the most frivolous definitions of torture. 

Waterboardering is borderline torture, since no one is either hurt or injured, much less killed.  There are no marks made by it, no broken bones, no burning, no dismemberments, no cutting off of heads (oh wait, thall at is done.....by our enemy.  And allowing attack dogs to bark visciously but not attack is NOT TORTURE, whether they're naked or not.  He refuses to limit "torture" to anything YOU and like minds would deem such.  which again still doesn't validate the asanine notion he condones any and all forms of torture.  The problem is you and the more rationally minded folks have different definitions of what constitutes torture.  Simple as that

Besides which, a little common sense is in order here - - why on earth would Bush WANT to preserve the right to put panties on a prisoner's head, or play loud music to him, if that's his only concern?

Tee, you wouldn't know common sense if it were a hive of African killer bees, who's nest you just kicked.  It's not torture, which is what your rant tangentially was running off on

You haven't made one allegation of dishonesty against me that could stick.

See the reference to "fooling yourself & knute" reference for better insight on that one

On the other hand, your misrepresentations of my arguments are apparent in just about everything you post.  That's why I say that you are the wrong person to lecture me or anyone else on honesty.  I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low.  I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit. 

Addressed in the last paragraph

<<Full context, if you don't mind>>
Sorry, if you're the one claiming I took it out of context, YOU have to provide the missing text that puts it IN context.  Otherwise, I'd have to reproduce the whole fucking text.

No, just the text of the quote.  Funny how you pull a quote out of context, then run for cover.  Then again, I have to consider the source, and the tactics used.

There were reports of torture at a desert base in Iraq and of course the "renditions" which were to various Eastern European countries, some Arab countries like Syria and Jordan, and the British naval base at Diego Garcia, among others.  There is plenty of torture all over the world conducted by the U.S. government directly or indirectly, far too many sites to make this an "isolated" anything.

Priceless.....more of precisely what I've been referencing....endless supply of accusations, nothing more than referencing "reports of torture" minus any proof or evidence.  Just hearsay and accusatory innuendo, with the only "proof" that of isolated incidents at the locations you frequently like to post, and expect that to mean massive #'s involved vs who's actually involved.

The story was in every fucking newspaper, magazine and TV broadcast at the time.  What's next, a demand for proof the the U.S. invaded Iraq and still has troops there? 

<<No, just proof that has the U.S. supporting Malliki all along>>

My one possible mistake, which I already apologized for.  Not because it's not true, only because it's not as well documented as I thought and because it MIGHT not be true.

LOL

"systematically debunked" - - what's this another declare victory hit enter?

Yea, kinda like what you've been doing thru this entire thread....again minus any facts to bolster your side (just random reference to incoherent dots), and no reference to the accusations you made about me.  Again, your contributions are substantially appreciated.

Barrage? (littany of personal slurs and insults)  THAT'S a barrage? (your A.D.D. must be acting up again, What, are you a total moron?, That you're a total idiot who doesn't know jackshit about anything?, I expect right-wing whackjobs like you to raise personal attacks on the honesty of their opponents when they run out of legitimate arguments, but most of the current members won't sink that low.  I think right now you are the only one who could, and it doesn't bother me one bit) 

Priceless  "Hey, thanks for helping ME make MY point"         

[Michael Tee]

I didn't "blur" geographical and numerical isolation, sirs, and it wouldn't matter if I had, because you are beaten either way - - U.S. torture of prisoners is neither geographically nor numerically isolated.  And the geographical prevalence is significant because it makes it virtually impossible to argue that these are "rogue" acts by out-of-control soldiers - - they can't be out of control all over the world, can they?

<<OR, people 5-7 layers up the chain of command have no frellin clue/idea/or grasp of what nimrods are doing 5-7 layers down the chain.">>

Well, if they are the commanders, it's their fucking BUSINESS to know such things, unless they are considered too trivial or unimportant to bother with.  They have the means to know and they have the duty to know.  So they are either guilty of complicity or gross negligence.  When the torture is widespread, it's kind of hard to believe that there are that many commanders asleep at the switch.  It is obviously complicity, borne out by the total failure to prosecute.

<<Sentences handed out for what crimes committed?  Show us.>>

Toughest sentence so far that I'm aware of is 8 yrs. handed out to Charles Graner of Abu Ghraib and last I heard, he's even appealing that.  Meantime prisoners have been tortured to death and no sentences or even trials that I'm aware of.

<<Again, if all it [the 90% of the 1100 Abu Ghraib photos and videos not released by the Pentagon] is is embarrasing to terrorists, I wouldn't show them either.  Panties on someone's head isn't what I'd call "torture", but the PC crowd would go apesnot, along with radical muslims>>

The above is exactly what you said, with a clarifying comment added by me in square brackets.  Sounded to me like you don't want to realease the photos because they would embarrass the "terrorists."  Now I see a different interpretation - - they don't show torture, so there's no point releasing them to expose wrongdoing, but the embarrassment they cause to the "terrorists" would cause "the PC crowd" to go apeshit."  OK my apologies for unintentionally distorting what you said, BUT:  your reasoning still doesn't hold water.  The "PC crowd" are still American citizens with a right to know what their employees are doing in their name.  The Pentagon has no right to withhold the photos simply because some citizens who have every fucking right to object might in fact object, whatever YOU may think of the merits of their objections.  Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any humiliations depicted in the withheld photos and videos that could be more embarrassing to the "terrorists" than those already released.  It's much more likely that the concern is not with "embarrassment" (a truly ridiculous concept) but with real torture, none of which - - apart from the dogs and the "not hooked up" electrodes - - has been shown to date.

<<Such a media spectacle, all in the effort to hurt Bush of course, simply will fuel the fire of muslim radicals, and those already predisposed to believing what the media want's them to believe about America.  >>

TRANSLATION:  Telling the truth about America and showing pictures of what they actually are doing (as opposed to what their TV spokesmen SAY they are doing) would enrage a lot of people.  Nice to see such frankness and honesty from you.

<<Such a broadcasting would most certainly result in a significant INCREASE in attacks against americans & innocent Iraqis.  Obviously, you don't care>>

Well that's only half-true.  I do care about attacks on innocent Iraqis, but I don't think pictures of American atrocities will fuel attacks against Iraqi civilians, who are only the victims of the atrocities, not the perpetrators.  I don't care about attacks on Americans, in fact I think they are well deserved and should continue until the last invader leaves Iraq to the Iraqis.  As in fact they will.

<<And here again Tee's tactic to a shrewd sharpness....accusing me and like minds, along with Bush assumingly as trvializing actual torture . . .>>

The fact is, you can't have a debate about torture in this group without you or a "like mind" mentioning panties or loud music, NEITHER of which has ever been seriously described as torture by any member of this group.  You are intent on trivializing the issue by dragging in non-related matter.

<<Waterboardering is borderline torture, since no one is either hurt or injured, much less killed.>>

That's outrageous.  Do you think it's OK for other countries or "terrorists" to waterboard American troops or civilians?  Your mother for example?  What the fuck is WRONG with you?  No, don't tell me about beheadings etc, just answer the question:  any problem with "terrorists" waterboarding their American prisoners?

<<Tee, you wouldn't know common sense if it were a hive of African killer bees, who's nest you just kicked.  It's not torture, which is what your rant tangentially was running off on>>

Forget common sense, sirs, which in your case is a hopeless goal, just try a little logic instead:  If Bush reserves the right to define torture because he's afraid it might limit him from using such techniques as putting women's panties on the heads of his prisoners, why doesn't he just say, "Fuck it, I don't really need to put panties on their heads anyway, so I'll drop my right to define torture for myself?"  That is obviously NOT the reason he wants to define torture for himself - - it is so he can torture people and say "It's not torture." 

<<No, just the text of the quote>>

The text of the quote  as I recall it is that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners are quaint and old fashioned.  That's my best recollection.  If you want to challenge it go ahead, but I've stated my own recollection of it to the best of my ability.

<<endless supply of accusations, nothing more than referencing "reports of torture" minus any proof or evidence.>>

Well, I wasn't there, if that's what you mean.  I refer to reports in MSM, the one I recall referring to a "desert base" of the U.S. forces in Iraq, probably in the Toronto Star or the Globe & Mail, and I'm sure in the New York Times as well, but I don't recall more now.  Some members may remember the reports, some may not.  If you are implying I made it up, I feel somewhat insulted that you would think that, although it's typical for you, but I really can't help it, and I certainly don't care enough about you or your opinion to waste even a minute of my time researching the issue at all.   Far as I'm concerned, it's what happened and if you don't believe it, that's YOUR problem.  I'm writing not to convince you of anything, which is impossible, but merely so your bullshit doesn't  remain unanswered in public.

I made my "barrage" comment thinking you were still going on a paragraph-by-paragraph cut-and-paste format, and so I looked back no further than the preceding paragraph for the "barrage."  You're right, of course, the whole post DID add up to a legitimate barrage.  How about that?  See what happens when you insult someone?  You get insulted in return.  Sometimes I feel I kinda went over the top.  Moreso on some other occasions but . . . Sorry if I offended you.

[_JS]

Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.

I must say that I was truly disgusted with this outcome. Of course I am not a Kurd or a Shi'a and it is a personal matter for me and a belief I held long before converting to Catholicism. I simply do not believe in execution.

I've watched a few specials and read numerous articles on Saddam's regime, complete with grainy video of the tortures he and his cronies used on the Iraqi people. I certainly would not condone any of that behavior, or the similar behavior of a number of atrocious dictators that have or are currently living. Yet, to my mind that still does not make execution permissible for a civilized state and the fact that it was caught on film and watched by some with glee makes it all the more disgusting.

[sirs]

...rant...blather...rant...insult

Suffice to say Tee, I think we've entertained the masses with your tirades long enough for this thread.  I demonstrated precisely where I referenced your meritless accusations to be.  You rationalized how they supposedly weren't, with the continued random dots that only you seem to be able to decipher and nebulous references to "reports say....", while still unable to demonstrate ANYWHERE where I've ever just implied that the military can do no wrong.  Topped off with the ususal insults.

SOP as usual.  Your efforts are duely appreciated & noted

[sirs]

Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court.

I must say that I was truly disgusted with this outcome. Of course I am not a Kurd or a Shi'a and it is a personal matter for me and a belief I held long before converting to Catholicism. I simply do not believe in execution.

I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Js's principled opposition to the death penalty in general vs Tee's caricature of some egregious miscarriage of justice.  Though I support the death penalty in specific instances, and would disagree with Js on its use, at least his position has a moral leg to stand on

[Michael Tee]

<<Suffice to say Tee, I think we've entertained the masses with your tirades long enough for this thread>>

My feelings exactly, sirs.  It's been fun exposing your bullshit and "We're No. 1" crap for what it is, and rest assured that in this or any other thread, none of your crypto-fascist claptrap will go unanswered.